"VICTIMS OF THE NUCLEAR AGE" Up to 1,300 million
people have been killed, maimed or diseased by nuclearpower since it's inception. The industry's figures
massively underestimate the real cost of nuclear power, in anattempt to hide its victims from the world. Here, the
author calculates the real number of victims of the nuclear age.

By Dr. Rosalie Bertell

On the tenth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster,
I was standing at a public meeting in Kiev, Ukraine, listening to the story of one of the firemen employed to clean up
the site after the explosion. These workers took huge doses of radiation during this task, and their story is a terrifying
one.About 600,000 men were conscripted as Chernobyl 'liquidators' [also called bio-robots']: farmers, factory workers,miners,
and soldiers- as well as professionals like the firemen- from all across Russia. Some of these men lifted pieces
of radioactive metal with their bare hands. They had to fight more than
300 fires created by the chunks of burning material
spewed off by the inferno. They buried trucks, fire engines, cars and all sorts of personal belongings. They felled a forest
and completely buried it, removed topsoil, bulldozed houses and filled all available clay-lined trenches with radioactive
debris. The minimum conscription time was 180 days, but many stayed for
a year. Some were threatened with severe punishment
to their families if they failed to stay and do their duty.

These 'liquidators' are now discarded and forgotten,
many vainly trying to establish that the ill health most have suffered ever since 1986 is a result of their massive
exposure to radiation. At the Centre for Radiation Research outside Kiev, there is an organization of former liquidators.
This group reports that by 1995, 13,000 of their members had died- almost 20 percent of which deaths were suicides.
About 70,000 members were estimated to be permanently disabled. But the members of this organization are the lucky ones.
Because many former liquidators are now scattered throughout Russia, they neither have the benefit of the organization's
special hospital, nor of membership of a survivor organization. They are known as the 'living dead.'

The fireman whose story I was listening to seemed
to be an exception to this grim litany of illness and death. He was tellingthe meeting how pleased and excited he was that, for
the first time in ten years, his blood test findings were in the
normalrange. I was standing next to a delegate from the International
Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]- the organisationcharged with promoting the use of atomic energy. On hearing
the fireman's story, he leaned over to me and said:"You see! We said these were only transient disorders."
A rough translation might read: Chernobyl? What's the problem?

IGNORING THE VICTIMS

The IAEA man's attitude was perfectly in keeping with
that of his organization which, along with the InternationalCommission on Radiation Protection [ICRP] exists in practice
largely to play down the effects of radiation on human health,and to shield the nuclear industry from compensation
claims from the public. The IAEA was set up in the late 1950s by he UN,to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote
the peaceful use of atomic energy- ironically, two contradictoryobjectives. The ICRP which evlved from the 1928 International
Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection, was set up inthe fifties to explore the health effects of radiation
and [theoretically] to protect the public from it. In fact, bothorganizations have come to serve the industry rather
than the public.

The Chernobyl case is a classic example of the IAEA's
inadequacy and questionable science. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, not least from the many thousands
of victims themselves, the IAEA insists that only 32 people have so far
died as a result of Chernobyl- those who died in the
radiation ward of Hospital six in Moscow.All other deaths related to the disaster and its aftermath [and there have been
many more than 10,000 in Ukraine alone according to the Minister of Health there] are ignored. Belarus had the highest fallout,
and yet there is an international blackout among the IAEA and the rest of the "radiation protection community" on the
suffering of its people

The essential problem is that both the IAEA and
the ICRP are dealing not with science but with politics and administration; not with public health but
with maintaining an increasingly dubious industry. It is their interests,
and those of the nuclear industry, to play down the
health effects of radiation.

RESTRICTIVE DEFINITIONS

The main way in which the "radiation protection
industry" has succeeded in hugely underrating the ill-health caused
by nuclear power is by insisting on a group of extremely
restrictive definitions as to what qualifies as a radiation-caused illness statistic. For example, under IAEA's criteria:

If a radiation-caused cancer is
not fatal, it is not counted in the IAEA's figures

If a cancer is initiated by another carcenogen,
but accelerated or promoted by exposure to radiation, it is not counted.

If an auto-immune disease or any non-cancer
is caused by radiation, it is not counted.

Radiation-damaged embryos or foetuses which
result in miscarriage or stillbirth do not count

A congenitally blind, deaf or malformed child
whose illnesses are are radiation-related are not included in the figures because this is not genetic damage, but rather
is teratogenic, and will not be passed on later to the child's offspring.

Causing the genetic predisposition to breast cancer
or heart disease does not count since it is not a "serious genetic disease" in the Mendelian sense.

Even if radiation causes a fatal cancer or serious
genetic disease in a live born infant, it is discounted if the estimated radiation dose is below 100 mSv [mSv= millisievert,a
measurement of radiation exposure. One hundred millsievert is the equivalent in radiation of about 100 X-Rays].

Even if radiation causes a lung cancer, it does
not count if the person smokes- in fact whenever there is a possibility
of another cause, radiation cannot be blamed.

If all else fails, it is possible to claim that
radiation below some designated dose does not cause cancer, and then average over the whole body the radiation dose
which has actually been received by one part of the body or even organ,
as for instance when radio-iodine concentrates in
the thyroid. This arbitrary dilution of the dose will ensure that the 100
mSv cut-off point is nowhere near reached. It is a
technique used to dismiss the sickness of Gulf War veterans who inhaled
small particles of ceramic uranium which stayed in their
lungs for more than two years, and in their bodies for more than eight years, irradiating and damaging cells in
a particular part of the body.

THE REAL VICTIMS

Despite the authorities' attempt at concealment,
we can still begin to enumerate the real victims of the nuclear age.Although the calculations and statistics which I have
brought to bear below do not include all of the human suffering thathas been caused by the nuclear age, a closer look will
show that the methodology is adequate for a first estimate of majordamage. The magnitude of the harm already caused is startling,
and even more so when we realise many types of damagehave been omitted from this first estimate.

In my estimate cancer, whether fatal or non-fatal
[excluding non-fatal skin cancer], genetic damage and serious congenital malformations and diseases will be included
in the figures. Other damage is acknowledged but not estimated. Ultimately, whether or not one cares about the
damage caused by radiation exposure is ultimately a human, not a scientific question. Damage is damage, and causing
an unwanted attack on someone's person or reproductive capacity is a violation of human rights. Such damage can be rated
for importance, but it should not be arbitrarily ignored.

"Statistics are the people with the tears wiped
away" stated one of the Rongelap people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, who 'hosted' the United States Bikini
nuclear testing in the 1950s. This is the story of many tears, and of a
hard hearted mindset that laid down the degree of suffering
and ill-health that would be the 'acceptable' price to pay for the world 'benefitting' from nuclear technology.

RISK ESTIMATES USED IN THIS ANALYSIS

In order to estimate the real victims of the nuclear industry
[as oppossed to those figures enumerated by the ICRP,IAEA and other nuclear apologists] I will take the customary
risk estimates, indicate their probable range of error, and thenextend the definition to cover related events not recognized
as 'detriments' by the regulators. For example, while the nuclearregulators only take fatal cancers into consideration
as 'detriments' by the regulators, others, especially those who endurea non-fatal cancer, may find their suffering equally
worthy of consideration. And limiting genetic effects to live bornoffspring does not wipe away the tears of a family that
has endured a spontaneous miscarriage or stillbirth.

ESTIMATING THE FATAL AND NON-FATAL CANCER RISKS

In 1991, the ICRP concluded that the projected lifetime
risk of fatal cancer for members of the population exposed Sievert whole-body radiation at a low dose rate, was between
seven and 11 excess fatal cancers, and seven to eight excess fatalities for in the nuclear industry aged 25 to 64 years.
We extend these estimates to non-fatal cancers by estimating the
total number of cancers which were used by the ICRP in
order to obtain the number of fatalities. We therefore estimate 16 fatal and non-fatal cancers if we exclude non-fatal skin
cancers] or 36 if we count them.If the estimate of fatal cancers was off by a factor of two then we can double all those
numbers.

The estimate I use for cancer 16 per 100 Person
Sieverts, but the reader can adjust this estimate to suit other inclusions, exclusions or uncertainties.

ESTIMATING DAMAGE TO AN EMBRYO OR FOETUS

According to the BEIR Committee [Bilogical Effects of
Ionizing Radiation] 1990 report, a dose of 150 mSv to human maletestes will cause temporary sterility, and a single dose
of 3.5 Sv will cause permanent sterility. According to the ICRP in1991, just 5 mSv to the testes will cause damage to offspring
- YET THIS DOSE WAS PERMITTED YEARLY TO MEMBERSOF THE PUBLIC, AND TEN TIMES MORE TO NUCLEAR WORKERS,
IN ALL COUNTRIES PRIOR TO 1990. It continuestoday to be permitted yearly for nuclear workers in most
countries.

Women carry with them all of the ova from birth which
they will ever have. The threshold for permanent femalesterilisation decreases with age, but in general about
650 mSv is considered to be the threshold for temporary sterility inwomen. After the Bravo event- the detonation of a hydrogen
bomb at the Bikini Atoll in the Pacific in March 1954- thewomen of Rongelap Atoll experienced about five years
of sterility. As they regained their sterility, they experienced faultypregnancies, miscarrigies, stillbirths and damage to
their offspring. Since some radionucleides can be retained in bone orfatty tissues, they are able to cross the placenta barrier
and disrupt the developing embryo or foetus. Radionucleides inthe mother's body can also be transferred in her
breast milk.

The official nuclear industry definition of 'detriment'
includes only serious genetic disease not judged to be serious, and teratogenic diseases [those which are not passed
on to offspring] are not counted. Recently the 1990 BEIR committee made one small concession in recognizing mental
retardation in children exposed to radiation during the fifth to 15th weeks of their mother's pregnancy. Radiation kills brain
cells, causing both an underdeveloped brain [microcephaly] and mental retardation. For the individual child, BEIR estimates
that a dose in utero of 100 to 500 mSv can cause a range of problems from poor school performance to severe mental retardation.

GENETIC DAMAGE

The U.N. Scientific Committee on the effects of Atomic
Radiation [UNSCEAR] and BEIR both agree that a population of onemillion live births exposed to 100 Person Sieverts will
result in one to three genetic damage effects to offspring, and so
tothe human gene pool. The doubling dose for genetic effects
[the dose that will cause twice as many genetic effects] ismore contentious, with some geneticists claiming that
it is 2.5 Sv, and others claiming much greater sensitivity with a 0.12Sv doubling dose. If the latter is true, then the increase
in genetic effects will be 8.3 per cent for every 10mSv andtherefore 83 such effects per million live births when
the total averaged dose is 100 Person Sieverts rather than the 4such effects in the first instance. On the conservative
side, we have taken 10 genetic effects to be the number for exposedoffspring.

ESTIMATE OF TERATOGENIC EFFECTS'

The damage to an embryo from ionizing radiation
when in the womb is not considered to be genetic. Such irradiation can lead to some 30 different congenital anomolies
including permanent damage to the brain, mental deficiency, skull deformities, cleft palate, spina bifida, club-feet,
genital deformities, growth retardation and childhood cancer. A total of all those effects, including mortality, amount
to 46, of which 25 are live born.

When we summarise those risk estimates, we get 16
cancers, 10 genetic effects and 25 congenital effects for one million exposed to 100 Person Sieverts.The task now is
to apply those numbers for the global population from industrial nuclear activities, including weapons testing in the fifties,
sixties and early seventies and electricity production from nuclear power over the past half century. When we do this
we find that weapons testing has lead to nearly 376 million cancers, 235 million genetic effects and 587 million teratogenic
effects to give A TOTAL OF APPROXIMATELY 1,200 MILLION.Meanwhile, electricity production from nuclear plants
between 1943 and 2000 may have lead to another million victims,ofwhich as many one-fifth will have been premature cancer
deaths. Although not officially accounted for, about 500 millionfoetuses would have also been lost as stillbirths during
that period from radiation exposure while in the womb.

Another century of nuclear power, and this carnage
would continue with more than 10 million victims a year. An industry which has the potential to kill, injure and maim
that number of innocent people- and all in the name of 'benefitting' society - is surely wholly unacceptable.

Rosalie Bertell, PhD, GNSH, is President of the International
Institute of Concern for Public Health and Editor in Chief ofInternational Perspectives in Public Health and Editor
in Chief of International Perspectives in Public Health [IICPH]. Dr.Bertell can be reached via e-mail at: drrbertell@home.com

International war crimes arrest warrants ought also to
be issued for the perpetrators of these crimes. People in theUnited States like Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric,
Michael Jordan CEO of Westinghouse and the usual litanyof military types, mostly Soviet & American. Does
anyone [Frances Boyle?]know anything about initiating legalproceedings against these people?

Notes/corrections to clarify above article as it was published in
the"Ecologist" from the Author, Dr. Rosalie Bertell:

RE: November Issue

Important references were omitted, as was the fact that
I used only UNSCEAR data on population doses of radiation due to weapons
or civilian nuclear enterprises. The text does not mention the source
of the population dose estimates, which are fundamental to the credibility.
I can also be faulted for the comment (added by someone) that 100 mSv is
the equivalent in radiation to about 100 medical Xrays. Nuclear
doses are always whole body doses, while medical Xray delivers a partial
body dose to the target organ (teeth, chest, kidney, etc.). Speaking
about "100 medical Xrays" is pretty vague and useless.

I tried to present the results in table form so that you
could aggregate them as you needed, but I cannot match the numbers used
in the article with my original estimates. The editor exaggerated
somewhat the weapon testing contribution and very much slighted the nuclear
power contribution. Both calculations were made using the same methodology
and both used the official UNSCEAR data.

However, the text says: "we find that weapon testing has
led to .......approximately 1,200 million. Meanwhile, electricity
production fromnuclear plants between 1943 and 2000 may have led to
another million victims ....."

Of these amounts, about 31.4% are radiation induced cancers;
19.6% are genetic effects and 49% are teratogenetic effects in live born
offspring.

I used official risk factors except for not introducing
the dose rate effect which the nuclear people do to reduce the number of
cancers. My ownresearch would say that the cancer estimates should be
doubled, not divided by two. In the paper I maintained a neutral
position be not doing either.

Unburned DU penetrators in Iraq after 1991 'war'
http://www.llrc.org/du/duframes.htm
There were several places where the 14.7mm penetrator cores of the 30mm
A-10 shells were
just lying on the road. These were very radioactive, and gave 12000cps
or more beta radiation
equivalent to tissue doses of 0.48mSv/hour. The uncorrected alpha signal
was 12cps. Thus anyone
handling them for any length of time would receive a serious burn. No doubt
pieces of these and
whole penetrators litter the area around the towns where they were used.
In one building in an oil
pumping station where no tanks were, there were several such rounds lying
about. One had
grazed the plaster inside a doorway of a building and embedded itself in
the floor. There were high
levels of radioactivity along the greyish graze mark.